I am in NYC, which is pretty far east in the timezone (although not as east as others), and I still vote for DST being the permanent time.

Boston is quite a bit further east (and north). Personally, I'd go for year-round DST (or Atlantic Time which would effectively be the same thing).

You'll never resolve individual preferences though. Some won't want sun at 4AM in the summer; others won't want dark at 4PM in the winter [ADDED: or kids waiting around for school buses in pitch dark]. Get far enough north (and much of Europe is much further north) and there isn't enough light to go around at some times of the year.

I used to care more. Now my schedule is mostly flexible enough that I can largely choose when in the day I want it to be light.

Permanent DST improves both of your examples (sun rising too early in the summer and setting too early in the winter).

The argument against permanent DST in Boston is how dark it would be when kids go to school.

Of course the counterarguments are "Alaskans do it" and "you can just adjust school schedules (and the work schedules of all the affected parents...)". In theory, those are both options, but are less desirable for many than the status quo

Or in the UK where it's dark by 4pm in mid-winter. Give me back my daylight

But if it shifts forward it's be dark in the morning till 9.30am.